Thomas Jackson Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Lord Panda' date='08 February 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1265610144' post='2168346'] Don't want to be ZI'd? Follow surrender terms. It's not hard to figure out, honestly. [/quote] I'm interested to see if anyone has taken you up on these terms yet. All it seems to be is giving those nations even more incentive to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 As much as I love to see people be given a way out of the war, I have one thing to say: "Let's all go into peace mode, while in anarchy, already inept at building my nation (probably), realize we can't pay any bills worth a !@#$, try to fix the problem, get ZI'd for breaking terms or delete the nation." I get that you guys are trying to give these guys a way out of the war, but there is no way to justify this as "Benevolent" or a "good" thing in any way. One of our alliance-mates recently got raided by another nation that was aligned. I messaged the attacker telling him to stop, and the leader of the alliance the attacker is in, informing him of the situation. I asked nothing of either of them. No reps., no apology, just a cease fire and peace. THAT is benevolence. Asking them to either destroy their nations in war, destroy their nations in peace, or destroy their nations in violation of peace is not a term at all, nor is it benevolence. I can understand not wanting aid to be sent. Yeah. But killing their nation? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Lord Panda' date='08 February 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1265610144' post='2168346'] Don't want to be ZI'd? Follow surrender terms. It's not hard to figure out, honestly. [/quote] I find it hilarious how you can't handle getting nuked. Your tears, they feed me and make me stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito716 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Makes me glad I was fighting on the real front and not off in some backwater... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Tito716' date='08 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1265612318' post='2168414'] Makes me glad I was fighting on the real front and not off in some backwater... [/quote] You fought in this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merdesa Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='08 February 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1265610551' post='2168366'] I'm interested to see if anyone has taken you up on these terms yet. All it seems to be is giving those nations even more incentive to fight. [/quote] Our guys want to fight no matter what, they're having too much fun to accept peace. If anyone from the WFF accepts this it would be the same people who never bother to participate in the alliance, and thus explaining why they have no clue why they're being attacked, or how to properly fight back --ghosts more or less. The thing is we just got into this war, and it's been even less time since Nexus declared on us, so peace terms seem a bit premature, and the price steep. Like anyone buying any piece of technology, if we were interested, we'd wait for the updates and bugs to be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='bigwoody' date='08 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1265612411' post='2168416'] You fought in this war? [/quote] coulda fooled me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='merdesa' date='08 February 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1265612879' post='2168425'] Our guys want to fight no matter what, they're having too much fun to accept peace. If anyone from the WFF accepts this it would be the same people who never bother to participate in the alliance, and thus explaining why they have no clue why they're being attacked, or how to properly fight back --ghosts more or less. [/quote] Took the words right outa my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 (edited) You cant force people to sign up off world and surrender anywhere but here unless Im mistaken. I see the bigger terms are creeping in already, I hope you're told to shove them. Edited February 8, 2010 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='merdesa' date='08 February 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1265612879' post='2168425'] Our guys want to fight no matter what, they're having too much fun to accept peace. If anyone from the WFF accepts this it would be the same people who never bother to participate in the alliance, and thus explaining why they have no clue why they're being attacked, or how to properly fight back --ghosts more or less. The thing is we just got into this war, and it's been even less time since Nexus declared on us, so peace terms seem a bit premature, and the price steep. Like anyone buying any piece of technology, if we were interested, we'd wait for the updates and bugs to be fixed. [/quote] I was more or less wondering if anyone was dumb enough to take the terms, but I personally don't expect to see anyone surrender to terms like that. Glad to hear you're having fun with the war - that's what it's all about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unitedblahcentral Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 I thought this was a joke thread when i read it... Thanks for clarifying things though. Its these people that make me want to STAY in Cybernations. As someone said, this would probably be used as a moral boost for alliances that you are fighting. It will probably be something along the lines of: "If you people surrender, then you will get these surrender terms from Nexus, which will kill you anyway, so we must fight hard!" Anyway, i cant say much without flaming, so i'll just say i rest my case. [size="1"][size="2"]Even though i really dont.[/size][/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironchef Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Lord Panda' date='07 February 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1265599422' post='2167947'] Like was previously stated, [b][u]this is offering an early exit to those who are confused or don't really know the purpose of the war[/u][/b],which we have been seeing quite a bit of from WFF and TORN.[/quote] [img]http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u11/ironchef_GGA/nexxus-1.jpg[/img] [quote name='Lord Panda' date='07 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1265601417' post='2168020'] [u][b]Considering that we've had non-nuclear capable nations get nuked, and the fact that TORN and WFF committed nuclear first strikes against us, I say these are fair terms for them.[/b][/u][/quote] Your guy atacked my nation and I will nuke his sorry 6k $@! to dust. Dont like being nuked dont join a nuke war!!! These terms area joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 (edited) nvm. Edited February 8, 2010 by Hyperion321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veneke Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 I hate timezones. As has been stated, the terms are up and will be altered should this war drag on beyond 7 days (or other circumstances force us to change them, as I note below). Considering the fact that we've had multiple inquiries as to our policy on individual surrenders, the terms were designed with this being a relatively short war in duration. I do not believe that anyone wishes to force a player from the game, and to be honest if someone was in bill-lock and would be at risk losing their nation (as per Astronaut Jones) then an individual solution would be reached, which may even allow for the lifting of the no Foreign Aid term temporarily. This though brings us to the next point, individual terms are exactly that, individual. The above is a fairly accurate guideline on what to expect if you wish to surrender, no more than that. The actual terms given to anyone from WFF or TORN will have to be negotiated based on those peoples circumstances (bill-lock situation, etc). Thus the terms are obviously under continual scrutiny both to ensure the safety of the individual PoW and to satisfy our need that they're not going to re-enter the conflict. ZI for violation stands. You give your word to surrender and then you turn around and stab us in the back, I'll see you all the way down to ZI. I've no idea why people are complaining about this. Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King duffman Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Veneke' date='08 February 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1265624952' post='2168539'] I hate timezones. As has been stated, the terms are up and will be altered should this war drag on beyond 7 days (or other circumstances force us to change them, as I note below). Considering the fact that we've had multiple inquiries as to our policy on individual surrenders, the terms were designed with this being a relatively short war in duration. I do not believe that anyone wishes to force a player from the game, and to be honest if someone was in bill-lock and would be at risk losing their nation (as per Astronaut Jones) then an individual solution would be reached, which may even allow for the lifting of the no Foreign Aid term temporarily. This though brings us to the next point, individual terms are exactly that, individual. The above is a fairly accurate guideline on what to expect if you wish to surrender, no more than that. The actual terms given to anyone from WFF or TORN will have to be negotiated based on those peoples circumstances (bill-lock situation, etc). Thus the terms are obviously under continual scrutiny both to ensure the safety of the individual PoW and to satisfy our need that they're not going to re-enter the conflict. ZI for violation stands. You give your word to surrender and then you turn around and stab us in the back, I'll see you all the way down to ZI. I've no idea why people are complaining about this. Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] Thats all good but what about the Nexus guys that hit me and are heading for bill lock should i give them harsh terms for jumping on me? Nah im sorry cant give peace to bandwagoners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito716 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Veneke' date='08 February 2010 - 04:29 AM' timestamp='1265624952' post='2168539'] Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] The definition of poor form: Attacking nations with nukes and whining when they use them. That's right. [b]YOU[/b] attacked them. They didn't attack you. You paid for the ticket. Enjoy the ride. Edited February 8, 2010 by Tito716 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 57th Overlanders doesn't believe in nuclear warfare, and doesn't consider nukes to be large cruise missiles like much of the rest of the Cyberverse. You nuke them in a war you're losing, be prepared to face the consequences of going directly against their beliefs. If Admin Almighty cannot enforce actions that make nuclear warfare less desireable, long may alliances like the 57th take a stand on it in his stead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Nexus, why threaten with ZI? Thats too much man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Veneke' date='08 February 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1265624952' post='2168539'] Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] Sorry, but that's just pathetic. Nations over 35k should have an MP and SDI + at least 20 nukes. If you don't have them, other people should educate you why you [i]absolutely should have them[/i]. I'm teaching my (previously 80k) MCXA targets why you should have an MP, SDI, WRC and 25 nukes at when one has a 700+ days old nation @ 80k by nuking them every... single... day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito716 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='jerry wagner' date='04 February 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1265320994' post='2159463'] [b][color=#ff00ff]Nuclear attacks, including attempts to spy away nuclear weapons, whether such attempts succeed or not, will be responded to with nuclear force by ALL nuclear capable nations. The no first strike doctrine of the Nexus Agreement remains in effect. If the war we enter is nuclear, then we accept that nuclear activities are occurring and will partake.[/color][/b] [/quote] That was your DoW. TORN took you up on your offer to partake. All that's left is for Nexus to accept it (like you said you would). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='08 February 2010 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1265627185' post='2168552'] 57th Overlanders doesn't believe in nuclear warfare, and doesn't consider nukes to be large cruise missiles like much of the rest of the Cyberverse. You nuke them in a war you're losing, be prepared to face the consequences of going directly against their beliefs. If Admin Almighty cannot enforce actions that make nuclear warfare less desireable, long may alliances like the 57th take a stand on it in his stead. [/quote] [quote]the terms are up and will be altered should this war drag on beyond 7 days[/quote] We're not here to play by Nexus's rules. They declared on us... remember? We have no obligation to honor the convictions of those who attacked us. If they wanted a war in which their lower tier nations wouldn't get hurt, they should have deployed elsewhere. They made a strategic mistake to attack TORN, they are naive in thinking we will not use all assets at our disposal, and are naive to think our will to fight lasts less than 7 days. So might want to get to work on altering those terms now. You know ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Veneke' date='08 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1265624952' post='2168539'] Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] So if im piled on by three of your nations, only one of which has nukes, them I am only supposed to engage in nuclear warfare with him and stay strictly conventional with the others? I'm sorry, but the one nuclear nation has the ability to restrict my conventional battle successes by using nuclear weapons against me. By using nukes on all of them, I increase the damage done and then can inflict more damage, as I can gain great GA odds on all of them, and can then loot cash, steal tech and land, and destroy infra with conventional methods. This also gives me the ability to fight for longer and not use up all of my WarChest. Tell me, why would I pass on the chance to launch my nukes? Your claim of poor form and abhorrency on our part holds no water. Also, in the last while it is fair to assume that Nukes and War go together. Unless stated otherwise War goes full nuclear. Thats just how it has been. I don't even know why I'm defending ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Lord Curzon' date='08 February 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1265630180' post='2168576'] [b]We're not here to play by Nexus's rules.[/b] They declared on us... remember? We have no obligation to honor the convictions of those who attacked us. If they wanted a war in which their lower tier nations wouldn't get hurt, they should have deployed elsewhere. They made a strategic mistake to attack TORN, they are naive in thinking we will not use all assets at our disposal, and are naive to think our will to fight lasts less than 7 days. So might want to get to work on altering those terms now. You know ours. [/quote] If you wish to surrender you do not have a choice. 57th made their stance clear, it's not about saving their lower nations some damage, it's about a moral objection to the first striking and nuclear attacks on non-capable nations. [OOC: Need I remind you this is an IC forum, it's quite easy to imagine a nation ruler objecting to first strike nuclear attacks, or the equivalent of Iraq nuking Liechtenstein] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito716 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='08 February 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1265631645' post='2168593'] If you wish to surrender you do not have a choice. 57th made their stance clear, it's not about saving their lower nations some damage, it's about a moral objection to the first striking and nuclear attacks on non-capable nations. [OOC: Need I remind you this is an IC forum, it's quite easy to imagine a nation ruler objecting to first strike nuclear attacks, or the equivalent of Iraq nuking Liechtenstein] [/quote] A moral objection that is being conveniently emphasized only AFTER you started eating nukes. [OOC: Interesting comparison, but lets frame it correctly. Instead of Iraq, lets use North Korea. Let's assume that North Korea declared war on South Korea. The USA, England, France, Germany, Italy, etc etc etc then declared war on North Korea. North Korea starts nuking everyone it is at war with. Then, Singapore declares war on North Korea, is it realistic to expect North Korea to NOT nuke them?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King duffman Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='08 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1265631645' post='2168593'] If you wish to surrender you do not have a choice. 57th made their stance clear, it's not about saving their lower nations some damage, it's about a moral objection to the first striking and nuclear attacks on non-capable nations. [OOC: Need I remind you this is an IC forum, it's quite easy to imagine a nation ruler objecting to first strike nuclear attacks, or the equivalent of Iraq nuking Liechtenstein] [/quote] Dont you get were not interested even more so with all the bawwing bout Nukes after you attack us But if you would like to Surrender im sure someone will help you out somehow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.